To whom it may concern

International human rights law and global public goods

    Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

    36 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    Public goods and human rights are sometimes treated as intimately related, if not interchangeable, strategies to address matters of common global concern. The aim of the present contribution is to disentangle the two notions to shed some critical light on their respective potential to attend to contemporary problems of globalization. I distinguish the standard economic approach to public goods as a supposedly value-neutral technique to coordinate economic activity between states and markets from a political conception of human rights law that empowers individuals to partake in the definition of the public good. On this basis, I contend that framing global public goods and universal human rights in terms of interests and values that ‘we all’ hold in common tends to conceal or evade conflicts about their proper interpretation and implementation. This raises important normative questions with regard to the political and legal accountability of global ordering in both domains. The public goods approach has responded to this problem through extending the scope of political jurisdiction over public goods to encompass all those ‘affected’ by their costs and benefits. This finds its counterpart in attempts in the human rights debate to legally account for the global human rights impacts of public goods through extending human rights jurisdiction beyond state territory. By way of conclusion I contend that both approaches are indicative of a ‘horizontal’ transformation of statehood under conditions of globalization aimed at recovering the public good beyond the international order of states.
    Original languageEnglish
    PublisherWZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung
    Number of pages23
    Publication statusPublished - 2015

    Publication series

    NameWZB Center for Global Constitutionalism Discussion Papers

    Fingerprint

    human rights
    Law
    jurisdiction
    globalization
    statehood
    economic approach
    Values
    responsibility
    interpretation
    present
    market
    costs
    economics

    Keywords

    • human rights
    • public goods
    • globalisation
    • jurisdiction
    • all affected principle
    • democracy
    • welfare economics
    • international law

    Cite this

    Augenstein, D. (2015). To whom it may concern: International human rights law and global public goods. (WZB Center for Global Constitutionalism Discussion Papers). WZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
    Augenstein, Daniel. / To whom it may concern : International human rights law and global public goods. WZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, 2015. (WZB Center for Global Constitutionalism Discussion Papers).
    @techreport{3e6d8fd9c6b54bbaa1f8874d6bc31710,
    title = "To whom it may concern: International human rights law and global public goods",
    abstract = "Public goods and human rights are sometimes treated as intimately related, if not interchangeable, strategies to address matters of common global concern. The aim of the present contribution is to disentangle the two notions to shed some critical light on their respective potential to attend to contemporary problems of globalization. I distinguish the standard economic approach to public goods as a supposedly value-neutral technique to coordinate economic activity between states and markets from a political conception of human rights law that empowers individuals to partake in the definition of the public good. On this basis, I contend that framing global public goods and universal human rights in terms of interests and values that ‘we all’ hold in common tends to conceal or evade conflicts about their proper interpretation and implementation. This raises important normative questions with regard to the political and legal accountability of global ordering in both domains. The public goods approach has responded to this problem through extending the scope of political jurisdiction over public goods to encompass all those ‘affected’ by their costs and benefits. This finds its counterpart in attempts in the human rights debate to legally account for the global human rights impacts of public goods through extending human rights jurisdiction beyond state territory. By way of conclusion I contend that both approaches are indicative of a ‘horizontal’ transformation of statehood under conditions of globalization aimed at recovering the public good beyond the international order of states.",
    keywords = "human rights, public goods, globalisation, jurisdiction, all affected principle, democracy, welfare economics, international law",
    author = "Daniel Augenstein",
    year = "2015",
    language = "English",
    series = "WZB Center for Global Constitutionalism Discussion Papers",
    publisher = "WZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin f{\"u}r Sozialforschung",
    type = "WorkingPaper",
    institution = "WZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin f{\"u}r Sozialforschung",

    }

    Augenstein, D 2015 'To whom it may concern: International human rights law and global public goods' WZB Center for Global Constitutionalism Discussion Papers, WZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.

    To whom it may concern : International human rights law and global public goods. / Augenstein, Daniel.

    WZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, 2015. (WZB Center for Global Constitutionalism Discussion Papers).

    Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

    TY - UNPB

    T1 - To whom it may concern

    T2 - International human rights law and global public goods

    AU - Augenstein, Daniel

    PY - 2015

    Y1 - 2015

    N2 - Public goods and human rights are sometimes treated as intimately related, if not interchangeable, strategies to address matters of common global concern. The aim of the present contribution is to disentangle the two notions to shed some critical light on their respective potential to attend to contemporary problems of globalization. I distinguish the standard economic approach to public goods as a supposedly value-neutral technique to coordinate economic activity between states and markets from a political conception of human rights law that empowers individuals to partake in the definition of the public good. On this basis, I contend that framing global public goods and universal human rights in terms of interests and values that ‘we all’ hold in common tends to conceal or evade conflicts about their proper interpretation and implementation. This raises important normative questions with regard to the political and legal accountability of global ordering in both domains. The public goods approach has responded to this problem through extending the scope of political jurisdiction over public goods to encompass all those ‘affected’ by their costs and benefits. This finds its counterpart in attempts in the human rights debate to legally account for the global human rights impacts of public goods through extending human rights jurisdiction beyond state territory. By way of conclusion I contend that both approaches are indicative of a ‘horizontal’ transformation of statehood under conditions of globalization aimed at recovering the public good beyond the international order of states.

    AB - Public goods and human rights are sometimes treated as intimately related, if not interchangeable, strategies to address matters of common global concern. The aim of the present contribution is to disentangle the two notions to shed some critical light on their respective potential to attend to contemporary problems of globalization. I distinguish the standard economic approach to public goods as a supposedly value-neutral technique to coordinate economic activity between states and markets from a political conception of human rights law that empowers individuals to partake in the definition of the public good. On this basis, I contend that framing global public goods and universal human rights in terms of interests and values that ‘we all’ hold in common tends to conceal or evade conflicts about their proper interpretation and implementation. This raises important normative questions with regard to the political and legal accountability of global ordering in both domains. The public goods approach has responded to this problem through extending the scope of political jurisdiction over public goods to encompass all those ‘affected’ by their costs and benefits. This finds its counterpart in attempts in the human rights debate to legally account for the global human rights impacts of public goods through extending human rights jurisdiction beyond state territory. By way of conclusion I contend that both approaches are indicative of a ‘horizontal’ transformation of statehood under conditions of globalization aimed at recovering the public good beyond the international order of states.

    KW - human rights

    KW - public goods

    KW - globalisation

    KW - jurisdiction

    KW - all affected principle

    KW - democracy

    KW - welfare economics

    KW - international law

    M3 - Discussion paper

    T3 - WZB Center for Global Constitutionalism Discussion Papers

    BT - To whom it may concern

    PB - WZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung

    ER -

    Augenstein D. To whom it may concern: International human rights law and global public goods. WZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. 2015. (WZB Center for Global Constitutionalism Discussion Papers).